Full Judgment Text
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 29 July, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 9048/2008
SMT. SARJO & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Brajesh K. Srivastava & Mr.
Dinesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
D.D.A. AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. C.S. Dahiya, Adv. for R-2&3.
Mr. Ajay Verma & Mr. Amit
Mehra, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM : -
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioners being two of the daughters of one Shri Chandgi have
th
filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the letter dated 29 June, 2007
of the respondent no.1 DDA allotting in the name of the respondents
no.2&3, Plot No.26, Block-C in Village Rangpuri, in lieu of land acquired
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 1 of 9
in village Nagal Dewat.
2. It is not in dispute, that the land which was acquired was in the name
th
of Shri Chandgi; that Shri Chandgi died on 26 May, 1982 leaving nine
daughters and one son. Neither counsel is able to state whether the wife of
Shri Chandgi is alive or was alive at the time of demise of Shri Chandgi.
The respondents no.2&3 are the sons of the son of Shri Chandgi who died
rd
on 3 March, 1999.
3. A Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No.481/1982 was filed by the
residents of village Nagal Dewat whose land had been acquired. It appears
that directions were issued in the said writ petition for allotment of
alternative land in lieu of acquired land. A list of persons entitled to such
allotment of rehabilitation plot was prepared and in which the name of Shri
Chandgi found mention.
4. Certain applications came to be filed in the said disposed of W.P.(C)
th
481/1982 and which applications were disposed of vide order dated 18
th
May, 2005. Vide interim orders during the said proceedings, on 28 April,
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 2 of 9
2004 a Nodal Officer was appointed to prepare a list of persons eligible
for allotment, after considering the objections of different parties. The
Nodal Officer is stated to have prepared a list which was placed before this
th
Court in that writ petition. This Court in the order dated 18 May, 2005
also issued certain directions/guidelines/criteria regarding allotments. It
was inter alia directed that any person whose name found mention in the
th
Survey Report or in the Jamabandi as on 28 April, 1972 was eligible for
allotment of alternative plot; that if such a person has died intestate after
th
28 April, 1972 the legal heirs would be jointly entitled for allotment of
th
one plot only; that in the event of recorded owner dying after 28 April,
1972 leaving a Will, mutation in accordance with the Will shall be carried
out; the claims for mutation were directed to be made before the Nodal
th
Officer within 15 days of 18 May, 2005 and it was further directed that in
case the Nodal Officer rejected any applications, the aggrieved person
would have remedy by way of appropriate proceedings and not by way of
application in that writ petition.
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 3 of 9
5. The petitioners claim that Shri Chandgi being the recorded
th
bhoomidar and having died after 28 April, 1972, in accordance with the
guidelines aforesaid, the allotment of alternate/rehabilitation plot has to be
in the name of all the legal heirs of Shri Chandgi, including themselves and
has been wrongly made in the name of the respondents no.2 & 3 only.
They thus seek quashing of the allotment letter in name of respondents
no.2&3 only and issuance of allotment letter in name of all heirs of Shri
Chandgi.
6. The stand of the counsel for the respondent no.1 DDA is that the
respondent no.1 DDA has issued the allotment letter in the name of the
respondents no.2&3 in accordance with the list forwarded to it by the
ADM (SW) appointed as the Nodal Officer and thus no error can be said to
have been committed by respondent no.1 DDA.
7. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had applied to the Nodal
Officer for inclusion of their names as legal heirs of Shri Chandgi. The
petitioners however upon allotment in favour of the respondents no.2&3
have by way of this writ petition challenged the same. Notice of the
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 4 of 9
th
petition was issued and vide order dated 19 December, 2008 the
respondent no.1 DDA was restrained from executing the Conveyance Deed
of the plot in favour of the respondents no.2&3. The Conveyance Deed has
not been executed as yet.
8. The respondents no.2&3 in their counter affidavits have not set up
any Will of Shri Chandgi in favour of their father or in their favour. They
however contend that they along with their father were in possession of the
land which was acquired and possession whereof was ultimately delivered
only in the year 2007 and accordingly alternative plot aforesaid has been
allotted in their favour. They thus claim that since they alone were in
possession, they alone are entitled to the alternative plot.
9. The petitioners have filed CM No.4975/2011 to amend the writ
petition to implead the ADM and to challenge the mutation if any from the
name of Shri Chandgi to the name of the respondents no.2&3 only leading
to allotment in favour of the respondents no.2&3.
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 5 of 9
10. The respondents no.2&3 have filed CM No.10575/2011 contending
that another writ petition being W.P.(C) 3956/2010 though relating to
certain other family was filed on similar grounds but was withdrawn on
th
24 May, 2011 with liberty to file a suit. The contention of the counsel for
the respondents no.2&3 before this Court also is to relegate the petitioners
to a suit to establish their rights if any in the plot allotted, as the heirs of
Shri Chandgi.
11. I have wondered whether to allow the application for amendment,
issue notice to the ADM/Nodal Officer who had prepared the list and then
to verify the correctness thereof and/or to relegate the petitioners to a suit.
Though the respondents no.2&3 have also taken a plea of the petitioners
having relinquished their rights in their favour but admittedly there is no
registered Relinquishment Deed by the petitioners. The respondents
no.2&3 have not been able to state as to how they alone are entitled to the
estate of Shri Chandgi, it being not in dispute that the allotment of the
alternative plot is a part of the estate of Shri Chandgi. It is felt that rather
than multiplying the litigation, in the aforesaid facts the issue should be
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 6 of 9
decided in these proceedings only. This Court in exercise of powers under
Article 226 is to do substantial justice and not pass an order which would
merely lead to further litigation.
12. I have also considered the effect of the petitioners not approaching
the Nodal Officer. There is nothing in the orders in the W.P.(C) 481/1982
or otherwise in law which can extinguish the rights of the petitioners as the
heirs of Shri Chandgi for not approaching the Nodal Officer within the
stipulated time. Moreover the matter is not stale, the orders being of as late
as 2006 and the allotment of alternative plot being of immediately
preceding the filing of this petition.
13. It is also not as if any title has come to be vested in respondents
no.2&3 as yet. Challenge has been made at the stage of allotment itself.
th
Clause 3 of the allotment letter dated 29 June, 2007 is as under:-
“3. If it is discovered that the allotment has been obtained by suppression
of any facts or by mis-statement, mis-representation or fraud or if there
shall have been in opinion of the DDA, any breach of the condition of
allotment the allotment is liable to be cancelled forthwith. ”
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 7 of 9
The respondents no.2&3 having not explained as to how they alone
came to be substituted in place of Shri Chandgi and why the petitioners are
not entitled to have their names and names of other legal heirs of Sh.
Chandgi included in the allotment letter. There is also no merit in the claim
of respondents no.2&3 of alone being entitled to allotment for the reason
of being in possession. The directions in the earlier writ petition were
unambiguous. All the legal heirs of recorded owner are entitled to
allotment. The counsel for the respondents no.2&3 in response to query
whether the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 applied to acquired land has
replied in the negative and stated that the acquired land was not
agricultural but abadi land.
14. The petition therefore succeeds. The allotment letter impugned in
this petition is quashed and the respondent no.1 DDA is directed to issue a
fresh allotment letter with respect to the plot in the name of all the legal
heirs of Shri Chandgi.
15. The respondent no.2&3 in their counter affidavits have also stated
that they have sold the plot. However no particulars in this regard have
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 8 of 9
been produced. No purchaser also has come before this Court seeking
impleadment. It will also have to be considered whether the respondents
no.2&3 had any rights which could be so sold/transferred and whether the
terms & conditions of allotment permitted the respondents no.2&3 to so
transfer the allotment in their favour. However all the said questions
cannot be gone into these proceedings and the remedies therefor would be
by way of a suit.
16. The allotment to be now made as per the undisputed list of legal
heirs in para 4 of the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioners states
that the petitioners will furnish full particulars of all the legal heirs to the
respondent no.1 DDA within two weeks of today.
The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Dasti.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
JULY 29, 2011/ pp
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 9 of 9
th
Date of decision: 29 July, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 9048/2008
SMT. SARJO & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Brajesh K. Srivastava & Mr.
Dinesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
D.D.A. AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. C.S. Dahiya, Adv. for R-2&3.
Mr. Ajay Verma & Mr. Amit
Mehra, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM : -
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioners being two of the daughters of one Shri Chandgi have
th
filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the letter dated 29 June, 2007
of the respondent no.1 DDA allotting in the name of the respondents
no.2&3, Plot No.26, Block-C in Village Rangpuri, in lieu of land acquired
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 1 of 9
in village Nagal Dewat.
2. It is not in dispute, that the land which was acquired was in the name
th
of Shri Chandgi; that Shri Chandgi died on 26 May, 1982 leaving nine
daughters and one son. Neither counsel is able to state whether the wife of
Shri Chandgi is alive or was alive at the time of demise of Shri Chandgi.
The respondents no.2&3 are the sons of the son of Shri Chandgi who died
rd
on 3 March, 1999.
3. A Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No.481/1982 was filed by the
residents of village Nagal Dewat whose land had been acquired. It appears
that directions were issued in the said writ petition for allotment of
alternative land in lieu of acquired land. A list of persons entitled to such
allotment of rehabilitation plot was prepared and in which the name of Shri
Chandgi found mention.
4. Certain applications came to be filed in the said disposed of W.P.(C)
th
481/1982 and which applications were disposed of vide order dated 18
th
May, 2005. Vide interim orders during the said proceedings, on 28 April,
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 2 of 9
2004 a Nodal Officer was appointed to prepare a list of persons eligible
for allotment, after considering the objections of different parties. The
Nodal Officer is stated to have prepared a list which was placed before this
th
Court in that writ petition. This Court in the order dated 18 May, 2005
also issued certain directions/guidelines/criteria regarding allotments. It
was inter alia directed that any person whose name found mention in the
th
Survey Report or in the Jamabandi as on 28 April, 1972 was eligible for
allotment of alternative plot; that if such a person has died intestate after
th
28 April, 1972 the legal heirs would be jointly entitled for allotment of
th
one plot only; that in the event of recorded owner dying after 28 April,
1972 leaving a Will, mutation in accordance with the Will shall be carried
out; the claims for mutation were directed to be made before the Nodal
th
Officer within 15 days of 18 May, 2005 and it was further directed that in
case the Nodal Officer rejected any applications, the aggrieved person
would have remedy by way of appropriate proceedings and not by way of
application in that writ petition.
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 3 of 9
5. The petitioners claim that Shri Chandgi being the recorded
th
bhoomidar and having died after 28 April, 1972, in accordance with the
guidelines aforesaid, the allotment of alternate/rehabilitation plot has to be
in the name of all the legal heirs of Shri Chandgi, including themselves and
has been wrongly made in the name of the respondents no.2 & 3 only.
They thus seek quashing of the allotment letter in name of respondents
no.2&3 only and issuance of allotment letter in name of all heirs of Shri
Chandgi.
6. The stand of the counsel for the respondent no.1 DDA is that the
respondent no.1 DDA has issued the allotment letter in the name of the
respondents no.2&3 in accordance with the list forwarded to it by the
ADM (SW) appointed as the Nodal Officer and thus no error can be said to
have been committed by respondent no.1 DDA.
7. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had applied to the Nodal
Officer for inclusion of their names as legal heirs of Shri Chandgi. The
petitioners however upon allotment in favour of the respondents no.2&3
have by way of this writ petition challenged the same. Notice of the
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 4 of 9
th
petition was issued and vide order dated 19 December, 2008 the
respondent no.1 DDA was restrained from executing the Conveyance Deed
of the plot in favour of the respondents no.2&3. The Conveyance Deed has
not been executed as yet.
8. The respondents no.2&3 in their counter affidavits have not set up
any Will of Shri Chandgi in favour of their father or in their favour. They
however contend that they along with their father were in possession of the
land which was acquired and possession whereof was ultimately delivered
only in the year 2007 and accordingly alternative plot aforesaid has been
allotted in their favour. They thus claim that since they alone were in
possession, they alone are entitled to the alternative plot.
9. The petitioners have filed CM No.4975/2011 to amend the writ
petition to implead the ADM and to challenge the mutation if any from the
name of Shri Chandgi to the name of the respondents no.2&3 only leading
to allotment in favour of the respondents no.2&3.
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 5 of 9
10. The respondents no.2&3 have filed CM No.10575/2011 contending
that another writ petition being W.P.(C) 3956/2010 though relating to
certain other family was filed on similar grounds but was withdrawn on
th
24 May, 2011 with liberty to file a suit. The contention of the counsel for
the respondents no.2&3 before this Court also is to relegate the petitioners
to a suit to establish their rights if any in the plot allotted, as the heirs of
Shri Chandgi.
11. I have wondered whether to allow the application for amendment,
issue notice to the ADM/Nodal Officer who had prepared the list and then
to verify the correctness thereof and/or to relegate the petitioners to a suit.
Though the respondents no.2&3 have also taken a plea of the petitioners
having relinquished their rights in their favour but admittedly there is no
registered Relinquishment Deed by the petitioners. The respondents
no.2&3 have not been able to state as to how they alone are entitled to the
estate of Shri Chandgi, it being not in dispute that the allotment of the
alternative plot is a part of the estate of Shri Chandgi. It is felt that rather
than multiplying the litigation, in the aforesaid facts the issue should be
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 6 of 9
decided in these proceedings only. This Court in exercise of powers under
Article 226 is to do substantial justice and not pass an order which would
merely lead to further litigation.
12. I have also considered the effect of the petitioners not approaching
the Nodal Officer. There is nothing in the orders in the W.P.(C) 481/1982
or otherwise in law which can extinguish the rights of the petitioners as the
heirs of Shri Chandgi for not approaching the Nodal Officer within the
stipulated time. Moreover the matter is not stale, the orders being of as late
as 2006 and the allotment of alternative plot being of immediately
preceding the filing of this petition.
13. It is also not as if any title has come to be vested in respondents
no.2&3 as yet. Challenge has been made at the stage of allotment itself.
th
Clause 3 of the allotment letter dated 29 June, 2007 is as under:-
“3. If it is discovered that the allotment has been obtained by suppression
of any facts or by mis-statement, mis-representation or fraud or if there
shall have been in opinion of the DDA, any breach of the condition of
allotment the allotment is liable to be cancelled forthwith. ”
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 7 of 9
The respondents no.2&3 having not explained as to how they alone
came to be substituted in place of Shri Chandgi and why the petitioners are
not entitled to have their names and names of other legal heirs of Sh.
Chandgi included in the allotment letter. There is also no merit in the claim
of respondents no.2&3 of alone being entitled to allotment for the reason
of being in possession. The directions in the earlier writ petition were
unambiguous. All the legal heirs of recorded owner are entitled to
allotment. The counsel for the respondents no.2&3 in response to query
whether the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 applied to acquired land has
replied in the negative and stated that the acquired land was not
agricultural but abadi land.
14. The petition therefore succeeds. The allotment letter impugned in
this petition is quashed and the respondent no.1 DDA is directed to issue a
fresh allotment letter with respect to the plot in the name of all the legal
heirs of Shri Chandgi.
15. The respondent no.2&3 in their counter affidavits have also stated
that they have sold the plot. However no particulars in this regard have
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 8 of 9
been produced. No purchaser also has come before this Court seeking
impleadment. It will also have to be considered whether the respondents
no.2&3 had any rights which could be so sold/transferred and whether the
terms & conditions of allotment permitted the respondents no.2&3 to so
transfer the allotment in their favour. However all the said questions
cannot be gone into these proceedings and the remedies therefor would be
by way of a suit.
16. The allotment to be now made as per the undisputed list of legal
heirs in para 4 of the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioners states
that the petitioners will furnish full particulars of all the legal heirs to the
respondent no.1 DDA within two weeks of today.
The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Dasti.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
JULY 29, 2011/ pp
W.P.(C)9048/2008 Page 9 of 9